Telangana High Court

Smt. Rafia Pasha vs Aesha Mohammed Yousuf , Smt. Bee Bee ... on 25 June, 2025

        HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA

     CITY CIVIL COURT APPEAL NOs.191 AND 192 OF 2019

COMMON JUDGMENT:

These two appeals are filed aggrieved by the common

judgment and decree dated 06.12.2018 passed in O.S.No.2273 of

2011 and O.S.No.132 of 2013 by the learned VII Senior Civil

Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to as

'the trial Court').

2. For convenience and clarity, the parties herein are referred

to as they were arrayed before the trial Court.

3. The case of the plaintiff in O.S.No.2273 of 2011 is that she

is a native of Hyderabad but was married to the citizen of United

Arab Emirates (UAE) and has been permanently residing at Ras

Al Khaimah, Sharja, UAE and that she is the absolute owner and

possessor of the house No.2-2-76/9, Turabnagar, Slum area,

Amberpet, Hyderabad admeasuring 96.7 Sq.yards by virtue of

gift deed executed by her mother. It is her case that originally

the said property was purchased by her mother Smt. Hameena

Bee under a registered sale deed vide document No.2591 of 1961

dated 12.09.1961 and that during her life time she has gifted by

way of Hiba under a registered gift deed dated 25.03.1988 vide ETD,J CCCA_191_192_2019

document No.1714 of 1988 to the plaintiff and ever since then,

the plaintiff has been in possession of the property. That the

defendant is her younger sister and that after the death of her

mother in 1990, she has allowed the defendant who was in poor

financial condition to stay in a portion of the suit schedule

premises consisting of two rooms covered by tin shed and that

since then the defendant has been staying in that portion. The

plaintiff has kept an RCC portion of two rooms for her personal

use and that one room with a tin shed has been given on rent

and the defendant was asked to collect the rent for paying the

electricity and water consumption charges to GHMC but the

defendant has collected the rent and put it to her own use and

has not paid the water and electricity charges due to which the

water connection also has been disconnected. It is the further

case of the plaintiff that the defendant was having a large family

to maintain i.e. she had one son and six daughters and that her

husband died with ill-health and that the defendant's husband

was an auto driver and from the beginning they had meager

earnings and since the defendant is her own sister, she used to

help her financially and that during the life time of plaintiff's

husband, he used to help the defendant and the plaintiff also

paid monthly maintenance to the defendant. It is further averred ETD,J CCCA_191_192_2019

by the plaintiff that her husband has purchased a house in the

name of defendant vide municipal No.2-3-647/K/2, Prem Nagar,

Amberpet, Hyderabad, during his life time to help the defendant

and that a declaration was executed by the plaintiff's husband

which was accepted by the defendant and that the defendant has

signed as a witness. The plaintiff has further averred that she

used to make periodical visits to Hyderabad from UAE and that

once she visited Hyderabad to perform the marriage of

defendant's third daughter which was held on 26.07.2011 and

that the plaintiff has borne the marriage expenses and that she

carried the entire jewellery i.e. gold worth 66 tulas from UAE and

after the marriage the plaintiff has planned to visit Sangareddy

on 28.08.2011 to meet her maternal uncle's family and while

leaving for Sangareddy, she placed her luggage along with the

jewellery box in the custody of the defendant and that on return

from Sangareddy, she immediately left to UAE and on reaching

UAE she has realized that the jewellery box and cash was

missing in her luggage and immediately, she called the defendant

and enquired about the box but the defendant feigned ignorance.

Immediately, the plaintiff again came down to Hyderabad and

enquired and requested the defendant to return the gold

ornaments but defendant has refused to return and hence, she ETD,J CCCA_191_192_2019

lodged a complaint before the SHO, Amberpet vide crime No.362

of 2011 under Section 380 of IPC on 16.09.2011. It is alleged by

the plaintiff that the defendant's elder daughter and her husband

are having criminal back ground. It is further averred that the

defendant failed to vacate the premises though the plaintiff has

issued a legal notice dated 27.09.2011 asking her to vacate the

suit schedule property and that she has also mentioned in the

said notice that if she fails to vacate the premises, she has to pay

a sum of Rs.4,000/- per month as damages along with mesne

profits and that the defendant has received the notice but has

neither given reply nor vacated the suit schedule premises.

Hence, the suit.

4. The defendant filed written statement denying the

averments of the plaint but for admitting the fact that Ameena

Bee is their mother and that the suit schedule property was

originally purchased by her. It is contended by the defendant

that the gift deed is created by the plaintiff and that it is a sham

document and is not binding on them. It is further contended by

the defendant that their mother has informed them during her

life time that the RCC portion will be allotted to the share of

plaintiff and the three tin shed rooms were allotted to the share

of defendant and that the plaintiff never served their mother as ETD,J CCCA_191_192_2019

she used to reside at UAE, while the defendant has served their

mother when she was bedridden and that ever since the death of

their mother, the defendant has been residing in the present

portion which comes under her share. She further contended

that in 1995 plaintiff wanted to evict them from the suit schedule

premises but with the intervention of the elders, she could

resolve the difficulty. She denied the averment that the plaintiff's

husband purchased a property at Prem Nagar, Amberpet in her

name and further has denied the execution of the declaration.

She further contended that the plaintiff never stayed here and

that whenever the plaintiff comes to Hyderabad, herself and her

daughter used to offer household services to her. She further

denied the allegations of theft of gold ornaments and that the

plaintiff has been harassing them by filing the said case, thus,

they have filed a complaint before the Human Rights Commission

(HRC) vide HRC No.2085/2011, and that HRC has given

directions to the ACP to give protection to the defendant and her

children vide order dated 03.02.2012. She further submitted

that she is a poor lady and that her husband passed away on

09.11.2010 and that she performed the marriages of three

daughters and that three more daughters are living with her and

that if she is evicted from the suit schedule premises, she will not ETD,J CCCA_191_192_2019

have any shelter to stay and that she being the share holder in

the property, she cannot be evicted from the suit schedule

premises.

5. During the pendency of the above suit O.S.No.2273 of

2011, the defendant has filed O.S.No.132 of 2013 seeking

partition. The case of the plaintiff in O.S.No.132 of 2013 is that

the plaintiff and the defendant are the daughters of Ameena Bee

and that the defendant is her elder sister and that both of them

succeed to the property of Ameena Bee. It is the case of the

plaintiff that their mother is the owner and possessor of house

bearing No.2-2-76/9, admeasuring 96.7 Sq.Yards, situated at

Turab Nagar, Amberpet, Hyderabad, which was purchased by her

vide document No.2591 of 1961 dated First Baheman, 1357 F

and that their mother died on 30.08.1990 leaving behind herself

and the defendant. Therefore, both of them are entitled to the

suit schedule property. It is further averred that the RCC portion

was allotted to the defendant and the tin shed portion consisting

of three rooms were allotted to the plaintiff in front of the elders.

She further contended that she has been paying the electricity

and water charges from time to time and has been residing in the

said portion peacefully. She further averred that in 1995, the

defendant tried to evict her from the premises and that with the ETD,J CCCA_191_192_2019

help of neighbours and friends she could overcome the said

difficulty. It is alleged by the plaintiff that after her husband's

death on 09.11.2011, the defendant has been creating problems

to usurp the share of the plaintiff. She further contended that as

the defendant was living in Dubai, she used to visit India rarely

once in a year or once in two years and that whenever she visited

India, she used to stay in her portion and that once she visited

on 16.07.2011 and she left to Dubai on 02.09.2011 and

immediately, she came down on 03.09.2011 and alleged that she

lost her gold ornaments and filed a false case against them. The

other averments in the plaint are similar to the averments raised

in the written statement in O.S.No.2273 of 2011. It is her case

that she requested for partition of schedule property but the

defendant was not coming forward to effect the partition and to

allot her share and that she has learnt that the defendant is

making attempts to alienate the suit schedule property to third

parties and hence, she has filed the suit for partition.

6. The defendant has filed written statement denying

averments of the plaint and further contended that the present

suit is filed as a counterblast to her suit filed for eviction vide

O.S.No.2273 of 2011. She has reiterated the averments of her ETD,J CCCA_191_192_2019

plaint O.S.No.2273 of 2011, apart from denying the specific

allegations made by the defendant.

7. Based on the pleadings in O.S.No.2273 of 2011, the trial

Court framed the following issues:

"1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to evict the defendant from the suit schedule property?

2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the future mesne profits at Rs.4,000/- per month?

3) To what relief?"

8. Based on the pleadings in O.S.No.132 of 2013, the trial

Court framed the following issues:

"1) Whether the plaintiff and defendant are in joint possession of the suit schedule property?

2) Whether the mother of the defendant gifted the suit schedule property in favour of the defendant through a registered gift deed?

3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for preliminary decree of partition as prayed for, if so what are the shares to which the plaintiff and defendant is entitled to?

4) To what relief?"

9. The trial Court has conducted a joint trial of both the suits,

wherein PWs 1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A1 to A6 were

marked on behalf of the plaintiff and on the other hand, the ETD,J CCCA_191_192_2019

defendant got examined DWs 1 and 2 and Exs.B1 to B35 are

marked.

10. Based on the evidence on record, the trial Court has

dismissed O.S.No.132 of 2013 filed for partition and decreed

O.S.No.2273 of 2011 directing the defendant to vacate the suit

schedule property and deliver vacant possession within two

months and also has directed to pay an amount of Rs.4,000/-

per month for staying in the suit schedule property from the date

of filing suit till delivery of possession. Aggrieved by the said

common judgment and decree, the present appeals are filed by

Smt. Rafia Pasha, who is the plaintiff in O.S.No.132 of 2013 and

defendant in O.S.No.2273 of 2011.

11. Heard the submissions of Smt.D.Padmavahi, learned

counsel for appellant No.1, Sri J.C.Francis, learned counsel for

appellant No.3 and Sri M.Vijay Kumar Goud, learned counsel for

the respondent.

12. The learned appellant counsel has argued that Rafia Pasha

who is the defendant in O.S.No.2273 of 2011 has been deceived

by the plaintiff through a sham document i.e. the gift deed

alleged to have been executed by their mother in favour of the

plaintiff. She along with her sister Bee Bee Sulthana were the ETD,J CCCA_191_192_2019

only children of their mother and thus, both of them have

succeeded to the property of their mother Ameena Bee but the

trial Court has not considered the said fact and has dismissed

the suit for partition. The counsel has further argued that Rafia

Pasha was staying in the portion allotted to her, in the presence

of elders and that she is not staying in the premises as a tenant

of Bee Bee Sulthana and therefore, Bee Bee Sulthana is not

entitled to any relief of eviction against them and further is not

entitled to receive any rents or mesne profits from her. On the

other hand, Rafia Pasha is entitled for her share through

partition as the legal heir of Ameena Bee. She further argued

that taking advantage of her low economic status, Bee Bee

Sulthana has been harassing her ever since the death of her

husband and that she has also alleged theft on them and that

they have approached Human Rights Commission. She further

argued that Bee Bee Sulthana never stayed in India and that she

used to pay occasional visits and that Rafia Pasha was taking

care of her mother during her life time and has also performed

her final rites. The counsel has further argued that Rafia Pasha

is entitled to half share in the property of Ameena Bee and

therefore, the trial Court's judgment and decree dismissing her

suit for partition and decreeing the suit for eviction are erroneous ETD,J CCCA_191_192_2019

and therefore, has prayed to set aside both the judgment and

decree by allowing her appeals.

13. The learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand,

has argued that Bee Bee Sulthana is the elder daughter of

Ameena Bee and that Rafia Pasha is the younger daughter and

that the marriage of Bee Bee Sulthana was performed with a

citizen of UAE and that the Ameena Bee settled the marriage of

Rafia Pasha with one of their relatives but after the settlement of

marriage, she has eloped with an auto driver and was not in

touch with them. Subsequently, their mother Ameena Bee has

gifted the total suit schedule property to Bee Bee Sulthana and

that she used to enquire about her mother's health and that

their uncle used to take care of her mother in her absence. After

the death of her mother, they got inducted Rafia Pasha to stay in

the tin shed premises of the suit schedule property on

compassionate grounds as she was facing financial problems. As

the husband of Rafia Pasha was an auto driver and she was

facing financial problems, out of courtesy Bee Bee Sulthana used

to assist them financially. He further argued that the husband of

Bee Bee Sulthana also helped the family of Rafia Pasha and

purchased 50 Sq.yards of property at Amberpet and has also

executed a declaration deed which is signed by Rafia Pasha, ETD,J CCCA_191_192_2019

having considered that Rafia Pasha did not have any property

and was living in poverty. He further argued that having signed

the declaration as a witness, Rafia Pasha does not have any right

over the suit schedule property, she was staying in the premises

out of permissive possession and that once Bee Bee Sulthana

requested Rafia Pasha to vacate the suit schedule property, she

is supposed to handover the vacant possession and vacate the

suit schedule premises, but she has been evading the same

causing loss to Bee Bee Sulthana. He further argued that once

when Bee Bee Sulthana visited India to attend the marriage of

the third daughter of Rafia Pasha, Bee Bee Sulthana has left her

jewellery in the custody of Rafia Pasha and the same was stolen,

following which Bee Bee Sulthana has lodged a complaint with

the police and later on the jewellery was recovered from the

possession of the son-in-law of Rafia Pasha. He further argued

that Rafia Pasha has developed an evil eye over the property of

Bee Bee Sulthana and that she has already sold away the

property which was given by Bee Bee Sulthana's husband at

Prem Nagar, Amberpet and now she is hatching a plan to usurp

a portion of the suit schedule property and therefore, he prayed

this Court to confirm the judgment and decree passed by the

trial Court in both the suits.

ETD,J CCCA_191_192_2019

14. Based on the above rival submissions, the following points

arise for determination:

1) Whether Bee Bee Sulthana is entitled for vacant possession of the suit schedule property?

2) Whether Bee Bee Sulthana is entitled for the mesne profits claimed by her?


      3)    Whether Rafia Pasha is entitled to partition of
            the suit schedule property?    If so, to what
            share?

      4)    Whether the judgment and decree of the trial

Court is sustainable in law and under the facts?

5) To what relief?

15. Since the plaintiff in O.S.No.2273 of 2011 is the defendant

in O.S.No.132 of 2013 while the defendant in O.S.No.2273 of

2011 is the plaintiff in O.S.No.132 of 2013, to avoid confusion,

the parties herein are addressed by their names.

16. POINT NOs.1 AND 2:

a) Both the appeals i.e. CCCA Nos.191 and 192 are filed by

Rafia Pasha. Her contention is that herself and Bee Bee

Sulthana were the daughters of Ameena Bee and thus, she is

entitled to half share in the suit schedule property and that she

is not supposed to be evicted.

ETD,J CCCA_191_192_2019

b) The case of Bee Bee Sulthana is that her mother Ameena

Bee is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property as she

purchased the property from Mir Turab Ali Khan in 1961 and

that during her life time her mother executed a gift deed in her

favour. Ex.A1 is the gift deed and Ex.A2 is the registered sale

deed dated 12.09.1961, it is in Urdu but an English translated

copy is annexed to it. These two documents prove the case of

the Bee Bee Sulthana that Ameena Bee was the absolute owner

of the suit schedule premises by virtue of the sale deed under

Ex.A2. The recitals of Ex.A1 show that Ameena bee has executed

a gift deed on 25.03.1988 giving the suit schedule property to her

elder daughter i.e. Bee Bee Sultana. Though Rafia Pasha alleges

that the gift deed is a sham document, she has not taken any

steps to prove her contention. It is pertinent to mention herein

that Ex.A1 is a registered gift deed. Under Mohammedan Law,

the gift deed can be either oral or written Hiba and the counsel

for the respondent has vehemently argued that since they follow

the Personal Law, the Transfer of Property Act is not applicable to

them. However, the gift deed was registered and was exhibited

under Ex.A1. While the contention of counsel for appellant No.3

in this regard is that, once they got it registered, it looses the

colour of Personal Law and it has to be seen under the ETD,J CCCA_191_192_2019

requirements of Transfer of Property Act and the Indian Evidence

Act. His contention is that once the gift deed is registered it has

to be attested and once it is attested one of the

witnesses/attestors has to be examined as a witness as per

Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act and unless that is done,

the document under Ex.A1 cannot be held to be proved.

c) Hiba or gift under Mohammedan Law is defined by Mulla

in Principles of Mohammedan Law, 8th Edition, at page 150, as

hereunder:

"A Hiba or gift is "a transfer of property, made immediately, and without any exchange," by one person to another, and accepted by or on behalf of the latter"

d) It is pertinent to refer to Section 129 of the Transfer of

Property Act, 1882 and it is extracted hereunder as:

"129. Saving of donations mortis causa and Muhammadan Law.-- Nothing in this Chapter relates to gifts of moveable property made in contemplation of death, or shall be deemed to affect any rule of Muhammadan law."

e) Since the statute itself states that Chapter VII dealing with

'Gifts' is not applicable to Mohammedan Law, the contention of

the appellant counsel that the gift deed in this case needs

attestation and that the attestor has to be examined as a

witness, is not tenable.

ETD,J CCCA_191_192_2019

f) The Apex Court in Mansoor Saheb v. Salima 1 reiterated

that the registration of gifts (Hiba) is not required under

Mohammedan Law, if the valid requisites of the gift (declaration,

acceptance, and possession) are fulfilled, then the validity of the

gift cannot be affected even if it remains unregistered.

g) Thus under Mohammedan Law, the registration or

attestation is not required to gift a property. It is enough if the

donor intends to gift it and the donee accepts the same.

h) In the present case, it is evident that the property has been

gifted to Bee Bee Sulthana and that she has been enjoying the

property. It is the clear case of Bee Bee Sulthana that the entire

property was gifted to her. It is pertinent to mention in this

regard that Rafia Pasha also admitted in her evidence that she

started staying in suit schedule property after the death of her

mother. It is an admitted fact that her husband was an auto

driver. It is further elicited through PW2 that she eloped with an

auto driver after her marriage was fixed with one of their relatives

and that following the said incident, the mother of the parties

has gifted the property to Bee Bee Sulthana.

2024 LiveLaw (SC) 1023 ETD,J CCCA_191_192_2019

i) PW2/Meera Khan also supported the case of Bee Bee

Sulthana. It is elicited from him that Ameena Bee has looked

after their family and that Ameena Bee and her husband,

performed his marriage with Chand Sultana who is the daughter

of Ameena Bee's sister and it is further elicited through him that

husband of Rafia Pasha died prior to the death of Ameena Bee

and has denied the suggestion that Rafia Pasha performed the

death ceremony and 40 days Chailum of Ameena Bee. He

admitted that Bee Bee Sulthana was not present at the time of he

death of Ameena Bee. In his cross examination nothing contra

was elicited to discredit his evidence.

j) PW2 has asserted that since the defendant was not in a

good financial condition, it was the plaintiff who used to send

money for her mother's treatment and himself and his children

used to take care of Ameena Bee during her illness and also that

after the death of Ameena Bee, they performed the final rites with

the amount sent by the plaintiff. Thus, the evidence of PW2

falsifies the case of Rafia Pasha and strengthens the case of Bee

Bee Sulhana.

ETD,J CCCA_191_192_2019

k) Rafia Pasha has admitted in her cross examination that

her husband was an auto driver and that as per Ex.B35 her

brother-in-law purchased a property in her name and that she

was asked to vacate the suit schedule premises. Ex.B35 is filed

by her. She stated that though she filed it in the Court, she does

not know how she got the document and she does not remember

when the document was received but she has stated that the

document is under her custody since 1997. This proves the

contention of Bee Bee Sulthana that her husband purchased the

property and got executed Ex.B35. The said document is in the

possession of Rafia Pasha and she herself has filed in the suit

but still feigned ignorance with regard to the mode of possessing

the document and tried to pretend that she does not know about

the contents. She further admitted that no one has made any

attempts to evict her from the suit schedule property.

l) Rafia Pasha got examined DW2/Nasreen Begum in support

of her contentions and in the cross examination of DW2, it was

elicited that her mother is a friend of Ameena Bee (mother of the

parties herein) and that she is aware of the family affairs of both

the parties. It is elicited from her that Rafia Pasha and Bee Bee

Sulthana used to reside in one house but in separate portions.

She stated that the house of Rafia Pasha consists of two rooms ETD,J CCCA_191_192_2019

and a kitchen and that prior to this suit, one room was let out to

a tenant and that Rafia Pasha used to collect rents from the said

room and out of the said amounts she used to pay the electricity

and water bills. She further admitted that Rafia Pasha failed to

pay the water bill and water connection was disconnected. This

admission of DW2 proves the contention of Bee Bee Sulthana in

this regard, that she has let out one room to a tenant and asked

Rafia Pasha to collect rents from the said room and out of the

said amounts, she used to pay the electricity and water charges.

DW2 added that Rafia Pasha is residing in the said premises

from her birth. This statement contradicts the averment made

by Rafia Pasha, it is the case of Rafia Pasha that she has been

residing in the premises from the death of her mother. This

probabilises the case of Bee Bee Sulthana to be true. Thus, by

virtue of the gift deed Bee Bee Sulthana is the absolute owner of

the suit schedule property and that Rafia Pasha is staying in the

suit schedule property and that she is liable to vacate the suit

schedule property and handover the vacant possession of the

same.

m) Therefore, by virtue of registered sale deed in favour of

Ameena Bee and a gift deed executed by her in favour of Bee Bee

Sulthana, it is held that Bee Bee Sulthana is entitled to the suit ETD,J CCCA_191_192_2019

schedule property and thus, she is entitled to get Rafia Pasha

evicted from the suit schedule property and she is also entitled to

recover mesne profits. Point Nos.1 and 2 are answered

accordingly.

17. POINT NO.3:

a) It is alleged by Rafia Pasha/plaintiff in O.S.No.132 of 2013

that herself and her elder sister are the only children of Ameena

Bee and that therefore, she is entitled for half share in the suit

schedule property. Further, in her pleadings she has stated that

during the life time of her mother, she was allotted a share in the

property. She failed to produce any such evidence in this regard.

b) She contradicted her own pleadings by saying that she

requested Bee Bee Sulthana for partition of the suit schedule

property but Bee Bee Sulthana has not come forward. If at all

her contention that she was allotted a share in the suit schedule

property during the life time of her mother is true, the question

of partitioning the suit schedule property again does not arise.

c) It is held under point Nos.1 and 2 that Bee Bee Sulthana is

entitled to the suit schedule property by virtue of gift

deed/Ex.A1. The contention of respondent counsel is that the ETD,J CCCA_191_192_2019

appellants failed to seek cancellation of gift deed and thus, they

are not entitled to seek partition.

d) Learned counsel for the appellant No.1 has relied upon a

decision of the Apex Court in Hussain Ahmed Choudhury v.

Habibur Rahman 2. In the said case, the trial Court has held

that the gift deed was validly executed and that the land covered

by a subsequent sale deed had no relation with the said land and

thus, decreed the suit. The First Appellate Court has upheld the

orders while the High Court has concurred with the Courts below

on the legality and validity of the Gif Deed but has held that

since the plaintiff failed to seek cancellation of sale deed,

the plaintiff would be disentitled from obtaining the decree

declaring his right and interest over the suit schedule

property. The Apex Court has held that a plaintiff who is

not a party to a decree or a document, is not obligated to

sue for its cancellation and thus, has confirmed the trial

Court decree. Relying upon the said judgment, the appellant's

counsel has argued that their suit would not fail just because

they have not sought for cancellation of gif deed and that they

have enough evidence to prove that the plaintiff is entitled for

partition of suit schedule property.

2025 SCC OnLine SC 892 ETD,J CCCA_191_192_2019

e) It is already discussed in the preceding paragraphs that

Rafia Pasha failed to prove that the suit schedule property do not

belong to Bee Bee Sulthana and that they are available for

partition, therefore, the cited decision cannot be applied to the

facts and circumstances of the present case.

f) The said factual matrix probabilises the case of Bee Bee

Sulthana and the documents i.e. registered sale deed and the gift

deed under Exs.A2 and A1 respectively prove that the property

was gifted to Bee Bee Sulthana. Thus, the case of Bee Bee

Sulthana in eviction suit appears to be true, while the case of

Rafia Prasha has no legs to stand. She herself has filed

document under Ex.B35 which is the declaration given by the

husband of Bee Bee Sulthana stating that he has purchased a

property in the name of Rafia Pasha to an extent of 50 Sq.yards

at Prem Nagar, Amberpet, Hyderabad and that from then on

Rafia Pasha has no right over the suit schedule property. Thus,

she was supposed to vacate the suit schedule premises and

occupy the said property but it is an admitted fact that Rafia

Pasha is still staying in the suit schedule property. The conduct

of Rafia Pasha in the partition suit is made out from her own

contradictory statements, on one hand she states that no

declaration was executed by Bee Bee Sulthana's husband, on the ETD,J CCCA_191_192_2019

other hand she herself filed Ex.B35 and again she states that she

is not aware as to how she has received the document. Thus,

she fumbled in her evidence and the evidence of DW2 is of no

avail to her case and therefore, it is held that she is not entitled

to any relief of partition. It is already held in issue Nos.1 and 2

that Bee Bee Sulthana/plaintiff in O.S.No.2273 of 2011 is

entitled to a decree of eviction and that Rafia Prasha is supposed

to vacate the suit schedule premises. Thus, by virtue of the sale

deed and the gift deed, the suit schedule property belongs to Bee

Bee Sulthana/plaintiff in O.S.No.2273 of 2011, therefore, once

she is the owner of the property, there is no question of partition

of the suit schedule property and Rafia Pasha/plaintiff in

O.S.No.132 of 2013 cannot claim any share in the said property.

Therefore, the suit of Rafia Pasha/plaintiff in O.S.No.132 of 2013

fails and she is not entitled to partition of the suit schedule

property. Point No.3 is answered accordingly.

18. POINT NO.4:

In view of the reasoned findings arrived at point Nos.1 to 3,

it is held that the common judgment and decree passed by the

trial Court dismissing the suit filed for partition and decreeing

the suit filed for eviction are found to be well reasoned and ETD,J CCCA_191_192_2019

hence, they are held to be sustainable in law and under the facts

and circumstances of the case.

19. POINT NO.5:

In the result, both the appeals are dismissed upholding the

common judgment and decree dated 06.12.2018 passed in

O.S.No.2273 of 2011 and O.S.No.132 of 2013 by the learned VII

Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad. No costs.